If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Is there really parity in the NFL?

Listening to the Sirius this morning and the topic was, is there really parity in the NFL today? Got me thinking a bit, which is not something easily accomplished in the morning that's for sure.

Seems to be the catch phrase that every NFL analyst loves to throw around and probably what makes Roger Goodell sleep well at night, parody in the league. The handful of upper echelon teams is not overwhelming to the point that nobody has a chance. There is no decidely better conference year in and year out. Every team has play makers capable of taking over a game.

Or is there?

From an AFC perspective in the last 10 years there have been really 3 teams that have represented the conference in the Super Bowl; Steelers, Patriots, and the Colts. The Ravens won it in 2000 and have been in contention since, the Jets here and there, and the Chargers always find some way to fail. Every year though aren't we always talking about the same teams in the playoffs? Throw in a wildcard here and there like Bengals last year but when it comes right down to it the same teams are always in the mix come the post season.

I can see the argument from an NFC perspective, other than the Packers and Giants, it's been a mix of all sorts of teams making the playoffs each year and eventually the Super Bowl. The Eagles, Saints, Cardinals, Seattle, Chicago have all been there recently.

I think there is parity when it comes to teams being competitive but if you want to win a Super Bowl I think a team needs an elite QB and a play-making defense........Looking at those teams that have won the Super Bowl (including the NFC) the last few years those teams has an elite QB and play-making defense......Now the Steelers had a true great D in 2008......But teams like the Saints, Pack, Colts, really didn't have all-time great defenses but those defenses did make big plays at key times....

i think the parody lies in teams being able to quickly turn around after abysmal seasons. weve seen in this decade teams really go from pathetically awful to first place in their division. the saints, cardnials, and lions come to mind....but think about the panthers, saints, bucs, and falcons...all have had top 5 picks in a season, but 3 have been to the superbowl and the falcons have made several NFCC appearences. These teams arent as consistent as the steelers, colts, and patriots have been but rebuilding doesnt take as long anymore

it's not about the outcome but the opportunity! (boy could i go on a political rant right now, but i wont ) every team has the same chance, what they do with that chance is a different story.

if you draft poorly, overpay for free agents that don't pan out, hire poor coaches, or don't give coaches enough time/too much time, then you don't win.

the teams who are consistently in contention are the teams with the best front offices, that make the best decisions. thankfully the steelers are one of them.

"Today, I'm officially retiring a Pittsburgh Steeler. And as much as I will miss football, my teammates, coaches and everything about the game, I don't want to play it in any other uniform. The black and gold runs deep in me, and I will remain a Steeler for life."--Hines Ward

There was actually a chapter about this that I had to read about in my history of sport in America class (of course it was obviously titled "Parity in the NFL" ) Talked about the Packers being dominant for decades, then the Steelers, then the Cowboys, and then a few years later the Patriots. I don't know about today though. I think we've seen some teams who should never win the superbowl get pretty far or even win (i.e the Giants), but in terms of complete equality, I don't think so. The teams that make the more money and have the bigger fan bases obviously seem to do better on the field. Just is the way it has been for a long time.

Unlike MLB or NBA in the NFL everyone has an equal playing field. There is very little separating most of the teams. Like Raleigh stated the difference is in the front office. The teams with good leadership will remain a couple steps ahead of all the others.

"When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself."
-Wayne Dyer

There was actually a chapter about this that I had to read about in my history of sport in America class (of course it was obviously titled "Parity in the NFL" ) Talked about the Packers being dominant for decades, then the Steelers, then the Cowboys, and then a few years later the Patriots. I don't know about today though. I think we've seen some teams who should never win the superbowl get pretty far or even win (i.e the Giants), but in terms of complete equality, I don't think so. The teams that make the more money and have the bigger fan bases obviously seem to do better on the field. Just is the way it has been for a long time.

the cap makes it so the teams that make the most money do just that, make the most money. Revenue, Profitability, popularity, and value have no effect on the talent level or competitive nature of a team.

especialyl now with teams being forced to spend 90% of the cap (next year i believe) the cheaper owners are going to have to spend much more, the mike browns of the world cant be cheap anymore

the cap makes it so the teams that make the most money do just that, make the most money. Revenue, Profitability, popularity, and value have no effect on the talent level or competitive nature of a team.

especialyl now with teams being forced to spend 90% of the cap (next year i believe) the cheaper owners are going to have to spend much more, the mike browns of the world cant be cheap anymore

You think it's just a coincidence that teams like the Steelers and Patriots with huge fan bases do so well year after year but teams like the Panthers and the Jags with no fan base at all do terribly year after year? There has to be some correlation there.